I think the reason is more that it's a change that doesn't seem to be well-motivated, i.e. neither the proposal nor the discussion offer a compelling example where you would want an unboxed tuple to be matched lazily. That being said, I overlooked the implicit-bang alternative when I first read the proposal. That seems quite reasonable. The default behavior remains what people seem to expect, but enables the explicit use of lazy patterns should you want them. On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, at 03:38, Simon Peyton Jones via ghc-steering-committee wrote:
I’m actually mildly in favour of the proposed design.
The main reason for rejection is really
* It’s a change
Change is always a bit disruptive; and no one is arguing strongly that they really really want this.
So maybe we should just “park” it as OK in principle, but without sufficient support to justify the (hard to quantify) changeover costs.
Simon
From: ghc-steering-committee
On Behalf Of Vitaly Bragilevsky Sent: 16 August 2018 01:37 To: ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org Subject: [ghc-steering-committee] Proposal: Lazy unboxed tuples / warn on unbanged strict patterns (#35); Recommendation: Reject Hi,
the lazy unboxed tuples proposal (https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/35https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fghc-proposals%2Fghc-proposals%2Fpull%2F35&data=02%7C01%7Csimonpj%40microsoft.com%7C983115e9eee64eb4b03c08d603107655%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636699766583676606&sdata=PXTsCrM4otm8ZCEFZvNfkydSBo6J77zh5qb9CVNmZX8%3D&reserved=0) was under discussion for a long period of time (more than a year and a half since submission).
As a shepherd to this proposal I recommend rejection based on the following:
* there is no clearly articulated motivation in favor of this proposal despite complying with the Manual; * implementing this would lead to hard-to-trace performance issues in the users code (due to move from strictness in current GHC behaviour to laziness); * it looks like the change (B) of the proposal (warn an unbanged strict patterns) meets no complains, so it is better to be resubmitted as a separate proposal; * if resubmitted separately the change (A) should elaborate on desugaring to make potential performance drawbacks clear; * it seems (maybe mistakenly) that the author has lost his interest in this proposal.
Although silence is undestood as agreement, I'd be glad to receive a feedback on this recommendation.
Regards, Vitaly _______________________________________________ ghc-steering-committee mailing list ghc-steering-committee@haskell.org https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee